fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
There was more to the Martini problems in the Sudan campaign than just the ammunition.
The Martini-Henry Rifle
Ideal rifle for ww2?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
There was more to the Martini problems in the Sudan campaign than just the ammunition.
The Martini-Henry Rifle
- Thread starter
- #102
The .250 Savage with 120 gr bullet probably wouldn't be a barrel burner. The round was 'invented' in 1915.
Let's not mix three things - stopping power, penetration capability, and the fact that some people have more luck than others. The AK-47 round will not kill anyone that got hit into hand, leg, or even some part of torso, provided the victim received prompt and half-decent mecical care. Stopping power of that round was certainly bigger than 5.56, probably better than of the 7.92 Kurtz, and perhaps two times as good of the PPSh submachine gun. Penetration will not be as good when compared with cartridges firing much faster bullets, but it was certainly good to hurt a person behind car doors or similar obstacle.
More about luck in combat: my grandfather was hit by the blunt side of an axe back in ww2, laid down without conscience for several hours, got help from people from his unit, and lived another 40 years. The nasty scar was visible just above his ear.
Back in 1993, I was peeking through the 5x1 ft opening towards Bosnian Serb positions just north of Dubrovnik, Croatia. Someone from there fired a bullet that went two feet to my right. With less luck on my part, that someone might've been a bette shot and hit what he intended to hit.
In my brigade, from 1993-95, we have had perhaps two people killed by rifle bullet, but also 6-7 people that got killed by land mines (2-3 of them after the armistice!), and perhaps as much by artillery/mortar fire.
Hello Tomo Pauk,
Age really has nothing to do with things. The British Pattern 14 / Rifle No.3 / M1917 Enfield was originally designed with a different cartridge which turned out to have too short a barrel life to be useful. Perhaps you are right. The .25 calibers do split the difference nicely between the rather tiny 6 mm and the 6.5 mm. I haven't played much with guns in .25 caliber recently and mine were a bit bigger.
It is interesting that you should contrast this to a 5.56 because the rest of that quote was that "There are fewer guys walking around today who have been shot with a .223". Apparently this high lethality for the .223 is only good out to about 200 yards because past that, there is so much velocity lost that the bullet does not disintegrate. I only know what I read on the subject.... and to an extent what I have learned from disassembling deer that have been shot. I personally don't hunt, but I have examined the wounds from quite a few deer. Unfortunately, the bullets tend to be very well placed in the chest cavity, so the big difference is really whether the bullet hit a rib going in or not. There have also been a few hits in heavy muscle that obviously were not so well placed.
Hello Shortround6,
There is very little difference between our choices. You favour a lower recoil impulse while I favour greater hitting power.
As for bullet bearing surface and friction, that is really just a rather esoteric consideration in my opinion. The difference is really fairly small and using the 6.5 mm Swede as a model, the heavier bullets obviously worked. Whether they would be still necessary with a better ballistic shape is where we are disagreeing.
In the hypothetical world where this 6.5 mm rifle cartridge would exist, any number of things might happen.
I suspect that no matter how the original design went, it would probably end up with a light bullet anyway because if the military is willing to equip soldiers with assault rifles and M1 Carbines, then obviously not a high as I would like.
- Ivan.
Age really has nothing to do with things. The British Pattern 14 / Rifle No.3 / M1917 Enfield was originally designed with a different cartridge which turned out to have too short a barrel life to be useful. Perhaps you are right. The .25 calibers do split the difference nicely between the rather tiny 6 mm and the 6.5 mm. I haven't played much with guns in .25 caliber recently and mine were a bit bigger.
It is interesting that you should contrast this to a 5.56 because the rest of that quote was that "There are fewer guys walking around today who have been shot with a .223". Apparently this high lethality for the .223 is only good out to about 200 yards because past that, there is so much velocity lost that the bullet does not disintegrate. I only know what I read on the subject.... and to an extent what I have learned from disassembling deer that have been shot. I personally don't hunt, but I have examined the wounds from quite a few deer. Unfortunately, the bullets tend to be very well placed in the chest cavity, so the big difference is really whether the bullet hit a rib going in or not. There have also been a few hits in heavy muscle that obviously were not so well placed.
Hello Shortround6,
There is very little difference between our choices. You favour a lower recoil impulse while I favour greater hitting power.
As for bullet bearing surface and friction, that is really just a rather esoteric consideration in my opinion. The difference is really fairly small and using the 6.5 mm Swede as a model, the heavier bullets obviously worked. Whether they would be still necessary with a better ballistic shape is where we are disagreeing.
In the hypothetical world where this 6.5 mm rifle cartridge would exist, any number of things might happen.
I suspect that no matter how the original design went, it would probably end up with a light bullet anyway because if the military is willing to equip soldiers with assault rifles and M1 Carbines, then obviously not a high as I would like.
- Ivan.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
A car door is not an obstacle for a bullet. And a shot to the leg will kill if it hits the artery.
So here is the deal.
You can choose any variant of the SVD Dragunov Yugo, Chinese, Romanian or Soviet or any variant of the AK-74 or AKM.
If you choose the SVD then it will be street fighting against multiple targets in buildings and also using the bayonet.
If you choose the AKM it will be against snipers at night using only iron sights using Canadian law 5 round mags.
Choose wisely.
So here is the deal.
You can choose any variant of the SVD Dragunov Yugo, Chinese, Romanian or Soviet or any variant of the AK-74 or AKM.
If you choose the SVD then it will be street fighting against multiple targets in buildings and also using the bayonet.
If you choose the AKM it will be against snipers at night using only iron sights using Canadian law 5 round mags.
Choose wisely.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Reading the comments is not the ideal rifle but the ideal target rifle.
What a combat rifle and what a target rifle is nothing to do with each other.
The perfect combat rifle is something that fires a round when you're covered in mud and your own poop for weeks and you haven't slept in days in a water filled fox hole and you're hungry and tired and all you want to do is go home. In that scenario who cares if it's 5.56mm. maybe the soldier is wearing mittens or NBC suit and the enemy is shelling you.
What a combat rifle and what a target rifle is nothing to do with each other.
The perfect combat rifle is something that fires a round when you're covered in mud and your own poop for weeks and you haven't slept in days in a water filled fox hole and you're hungry and tired and all you want to do is go home. In that scenario who cares if it's 5.56mm. maybe the soldier is wearing mittens or NBC suit and the enemy is shelling you.
Shortround6
Major General
I don't get too excited about the difference between a .25 caliber (.257 bullet diameter) and the 6.5s (.263-.264 bullet diameter, Italians excepted) as it is about the smallest 'step' between popular calibers. What was more important most of the time was that the .25 cal rifles were made with slower twist rifling and commonly available bullets tended to be pretty poor for long range work, like 117 grain round nose. The 6.5s had quicker twist and heavier bullets in general.
There was no reason you couldn't get a quick twist .25 cal barrel made and some custom bullets but why bother.
Everybody has a bit different idea was to what constitutes "ideal" but if you use a a bullet almost as heavy as the .30-06 (in singe digits percentage wise) you are going to need more powder to drive it the same speed. The larger diameter bullets have a greater 'piston' area and are more efficient. Please see velocities of the .243, the .308 and the .358 Winchester with similar weight bullets. Or put another way, you need more powder to accelerate higher sectional density bullets to the same speed.
Smokeless powder is strange stuff, the more pressure it is under the faster it burns and creates more pressure. This is why when you are operating near the limit things like the friction of the long bullets (or perhaps the effort to engrave rifling on a larger area of the bullet?) matter. If you are willing to back off 50-100fps on the velocity the problems go away.
For WW II you had less knowledge about powders than you have today. For instance the IMR series of powders that seem old hat today were first introduced in the mid 1930s and showed considerable improvement over the powders they replaced. Ball powder was introduced during WW II But " ball propellants metered more uniformly through measuring machinery used to load cartridges, had a longer storage life in loaded cartridges, and reduced erosion of rifle barrels when those cartridges were fired. On the other hand, ball propellant loadings were more difficult to ignite, produced brighter muzzle flash, and left heavier fouling in rifle barrels than had been common with IMR propellants. Some ball propellants burned satisfactorily over a narrower pressure range than IMR propellants." The fouling problem is part of what lead to the early M-16 fiasco in Vietnam.
as far as wounding/kill ability and penetration go, they are actually conflicting requirements. And for penetration you have decide what, a metal plate or certain amount of wood or sand or........
The old 6mm Lee navy (112 grain round nose FMJ) was claimed to go through 60 7/8s in soft pine boards at 15ft. This assumes that the bullet stays point on during it's journey through the wood. However it's ability to inflict grievous wounds (except for organs/bones directly in it's path) is rather dubious.
Winchester claimed penetrations of 56 boards for a 215 grain FMJ .303 British load and even 50 boards for a 170 grain FMJ .30-30 (I have no idea what that load was intended for but it is in the catalog). Penetration of soft points fell to 12, 13 and 11 respectively. Bullets that yaw and turn sideways will obviously have much less penetration in such a test but will have better wounding/killing ability depending on how soon they yaw.
Unhardened steel plate can actually have holes punched in it by softnose nose ammunition, let alone FMJ, depending on thickness but effect behind the plate is pretty much limited to the metal blown out of the plate and the pretty much molten lead that squirts through the hole, see tank masks in WW I. A fair amount of the lead/jacket will be splashed over the face of the plate. Steel cored ammo works better on barriers but doesn't work so good for wounding/killing (unless it yaws) but steel core ammo is lighter than lead core and screws up the sectional density. Yes there is steel core 5.56 but if the same shape bullet had an entirely lead core it would be heavier.
First requirement should be getting hits at any practical range. And practical is a lot shorter than 1000 yds and yet longer than 300yds if proper training is given.
Ease of use ties in with above. Some troops are never going to be good rifle shots no matter what rifle you give them. Some will do better with lighter recoiling rifles and with some it doesn't really matter unless you start issuing elephant guns
A soldier who has confidence in his weapon and his ability with it is "more likely" to use it properly in combat. No guarantee he won't just stick it up over a wall at arms length and pull the trigger if he fires at all though.
Smaller/lighter cartridges are cheaper and ease the logistic/raw material burden. Shaving even 10% in weight of some components can result in savings of thousands of tons of raw materials.
Infantry rifles, while they are the base of the army (or tied with LMGs) are not operating alone most of the time. The mentioned LMGs, handgrenades for house/bunker/trench clearing (subject to supply), rifle grenades/small mortars were often supplied at squad/platoon level and at company level even somewhat heavier weapons (or optional equipment, ie heavy tripods) showed up.
An "ideal" rifle has to integrate with the system.
There was no reason you couldn't get a quick twist .25 cal barrel made and some custom bullets but why bother.
Everybody has a bit different idea was to what constitutes "ideal" but if you use a a bullet almost as heavy as the .30-06 (in singe digits percentage wise) you are going to need more powder to drive it the same speed. The larger diameter bullets have a greater 'piston' area and are more efficient. Please see velocities of the .243, the .308 and the .358 Winchester with similar weight bullets. Or put another way, you need more powder to accelerate higher sectional density bullets to the same speed.
Smokeless powder is strange stuff, the more pressure it is under the faster it burns and creates more pressure. This is why when you are operating near the limit things like the friction of the long bullets (or perhaps the effort to engrave rifling on a larger area of the bullet?) matter. If you are willing to back off 50-100fps on the velocity the problems go away.
For WW II you had less knowledge about powders than you have today. For instance the IMR series of powders that seem old hat today were first introduced in the mid 1930s and showed considerable improvement over the powders they replaced. Ball powder was introduced during WW II But " ball propellants metered more uniformly through measuring machinery used to load cartridges, had a longer storage life in loaded cartridges, and reduced erosion of rifle barrels when those cartridges were fired. On the other hand, ball propellant loadings were more difficult to ignite, produced brighter muzzle flash, and left heavier fouling in rifle barrels than had been common with IMR propellants. Some ball propellants burned satisfactorily over a narrower pressure range than IMR propellants." The fouling problem is part of what lead to the early M-16 fiasco in Vietnam.
as far as wounding/kill ability and penetration go, they are actually conflicting requirements. And for penetration you have decide what, a metal plate or certain amount of wood or sand or........
The old 6mm Lee navy (112 grain round nose FMJ) was claimed to go through 60 7/8s in soft pine boards at 15ft. This assumes that the bullet stays point on during it's journey through the wood. However it's ability to inflict grievous wounds (except for organs/bones directly in it's path) is rather dubious.
Winchester claimed penetrations of 56 boards for a 215 grain FMJ .303 British load and even 50 boards for a 170 grain FMJ .30-30 (I have no idea what that load was intended for but it is in the catalog). Penetration of soft points fell to 12, 13 and 11 respectively. Bullets that yaw and turn sideways will obviously have much less penetration in such a test but will have better wounding/killing ability depending on how soon they yaw.
Unhardened steel plate can actually have holes punched in it by softnose nose ammunition, let alone FMJ, depending on thickness but effect behind the plate is pretty much limited to the metal blown out of the plate and the pretty much molten lead that squirts through the hole, see tank masks in WW I. A fair amount of the lead/jacket will be splashed over the face of the plate. Steel cored ammo works better on barriers but doesn't work so good for wounding/killing (unless it yaws) but steel core ammo is lighter than lead core and screws up the sectional density. Yes there is steel core 5.56 but if the same shape bullet had an entirely lead core it would be heavier.
First requirement should be getting hits at any practical range. And practical is a lot shorter than 1000 yds and yet longer than 300yds if proper training is given.
Ease of use ties in with above. Some troops are never going to be good rifle shots no matter what rifle you give them. Some will do better with lighter recoiling rifles and with some it doesn't really matter unless you start issuing elephant guns
A soldier who has confidence in his weapon and his ability with it is "more likely" to use it properly in combat. No guarantee he won't just stick it up over a wall at arms length and pull the trigger if he fires at all though.
Smaller/lighter cartridges are cheaper and ease the logistic/raw material burden. Shaving even 10% in weight of some components can result in savings of thousands of tons of raw materials.
Infantry rifles, while they are the base of the army (or tied with LMGs) are not operating alone most of the time. The mentioned LMGs, handgrenades for house/bunker/trench clearing (subject to supply), rifle grenades/small mortars were often supplied at squad/platoon level and at company level even somewhat heavier weapons (or optional equipment, ie heavy tripods) showed up.
An "ideal" rifle has to integrate with the system.
Hello The Basket,
Basically what you are saying is that any round will kill if it hits in the right place, but it is more a matter of increasing the number of "right places" that got us to this discussion. A .22 LR will do the same thing if it hits an artery (maybe not quite as much) but it is hardly the stuff you want all your troops to be armed with as a standard weapon. If it were, then I suppose the M1 Carbine round would do even better and we know historically that it did not do so well.
As for SVD clones, you need to distinguish between the true clones of the SVD such as the Chinese NDM-86 or the stretched versions of the AK-47 such as the Yugoslav guns. I don't know about some of the others, but I believe the Romanian is also a stretched AK.
The way to tell from a distance is that the AK clones have a Top-Bottom handguard while Dragunov clones have a Left-Right handguard.
The gas system is actually quite different with the AK clones having a piston pinned to the bolt carrier.
Also, superficially the bolts from both guns will look very similar, but they rotate in opposite directions to lock. This can be seen by looking through the magazine well while slowly cycling the bolt.
Hello Shortround6,
The big advantage of ball powders in this application is that they are denser and have a higher energy content for the same volume.
Thus it might let you go to a smaller cartridge case for the same performance.
The big problem with the fouling in the thin little gas tubes of Vietnam era M16 rifles was mostly due to the formulation of the ball propellants of the time:
Ball (sorry to Winchester for infringing on their trademarked name) propellants are formulated from Nitrocellulose and Nitroglycerin while the IMR "stick" powders were Nitrocellulose (generalizing a bit here). The problem was that there was some residual nitric acid left in the ball powder and the government was concerned that it would affect shelf life. They added a chemical to neutralize the acid residue and the result upon combustion was Calcium Carbonate deposits. They did not make much if any difference in the bigger bore weapons but in the soda straw gas tube of the M16, they left deposits that could not be removed. The gas tubes are not user maintainable. The issue was resolved long ago and ball powders (double base propellants) are no issue at all in the AR-15 / M16 platform today.
Regarding the differences in flash between ball powder versus stick / IMR powders, it is really a matter of the deterrent coatings. I personally have loaded "IMR 4895" that I bought in bulk that had noticeably greater flash than regular IMR 4895. This was confirmed by my shooting buddies who had also bought from the same lot. There was no noticeable velocity difference or pressure indications or even visual difference between what we bought and regular canister IMR 4895.
Regarding cost differences between bullets because of a few percent difference in weight of materials, keep in mind that bullets are about the least expensive thing in the military budget. In the big scheme of things, these differences are so far down in the noise as to be meaningless.
Thousands of tons of raw material sounds serious but is pretty trivial when compared to the resources expended for other weapons.
If you are really looking for greater savings, reduce the weight of the HMG 12.7 / 13.2 / 14.5 mm bullets by 20-30 grains each..... Or perhaps make medium artillery rounds a pound lighter?
I believe you made a pretty good argument about why a 120 grain bullet was sufficient in the military 6.5 mm cartridge, but the pressure difference with a longer bullet isn't a very strong argument. A military cartridge should be designed with a fair amount of margin for pressure to account for differences in climate, temperature, etc, so if it is that marginal with its intended bullet weight, it should have been designed differently from the beginning.
Consider also that we are theorizing on the best approach to a military rifle cartridge along with a delivery platform. The fact that a .25 caliber historically has had a slower twist or that a 6.5 mm typically has a faster twist doesn't matter because we would also be specifying the requirements for the rifle and not just piecing things together as we do today as hobbyists.
- Ivan.
Last edited:
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Pretty much every military round will kill due to infection.
Shortround6
Major General
In reverse order, a .257 bullet that weighs 117 grains has a sectional density of .253, a .264 bullet that weighs 123 grains has a sectional density of .252.
An army could specify whatever they want based on theories or prejudices, but with so small a real life difference the actual results are going to be just about identical. Please note that a .224 bullet needs to weigh 90 grains to get to .256 Sectional density, a 7mm bullet needs to weigh 140 grains for .246, and .308 bullet needs to weigh 168 grains to reach .253 and an 8mm bullet would have to weigh 185 grains to hit .253.
Ballistic coefficient is not sectional density.
I calculated in another thread that the .276 Enfield cartridge of Pre WW I era would have cost the British alone over 6000 tons of cordite if produced at the same rate as .303 ammo in WW I. I didn't bother with any other raw materials. 6000 tons of propellent isn't exactly trivial.
For most anybody but the US the amount of heavy machine gun ammo was trivial in comparison to the amount of rifle caliber ammo. Especially in "Army" use as opposed to aircraft use.
the question may very well be if you want to replace the battalion HMGs (Vickers, M1917s, Maxims and so on) with the smaller cartridge or if you want to keep the older full size ammo for such weapons. A summer of 1941 list for the Americans shows 8250 rounds for each 1917 machine gun, 6000 rounds for each 1919 air cooled gun, around 1700 rounds for each BAR and 328 rounds for each M1 Garand. Granted there are an awful lot of M1s in the battalion. BTW each .50 cal machinegun (listed as an anti-tank machinegun at this time) had 2800 rounds per gun.
Ball powder was in it's infancy (barely out of the cradle) in WW II, whatever its attributes later. It's use in a WW II "ideal" cartridge might be fine, it might be questionable. The Americans used for lend lease .303 ammo but not much else.
An army could specify whatever they want based on theories or prejudices, but with so small a real life difference the actual results are going to be just about identical. Please note that a .224 bullet needs to weigh 90 grains to get to .256 Sectional density, a 7mm bullet needs to weigh 140 grains for .246, and .308 bullet needs to weigh 168 grains to reach .253 and an 8mm bullet would have to weigh 185 grains to hit .253.
Ballistic coefficient is not sectional density.
I calculated in another thread that the .276 Enfield cartridge of Pre WW I era would have cost the British alone over 6000 tons of cordite if produced at the same rate as .303 ammo in WW I. I didn't bother with any other raw materials. 6000 tons of propellent isn't exactly trivial.
For most anybody but the US the amount of heavy machine gun ammo was trivial in comparison to the amount of rifle caliber ammo. Especially in "Army" use as opposed to aircraft use.
the question may very well be if you want to replace the battalion HMGs (Vickers, M1917s, Maxims and so on) with the smaller cartridge or if you want to keep the older full size ammo for such weapons. A summer of 1941 list for the Americans shows 8250 rounds for each 1917 machine gun, 6000 rounds for each 1919 air cooled gun, around 1700 rounds for each BAR and 328 rounds for each M1 Garand. Granted there are an awful lot of M1s in the battalion. BTW each .50 cal machinegun (listed as an anti-tank machinegun at this time) had 2800 rounds per gun.
Ball powder was in it's infancy (barely out of the cradle) in WW II, whatever its attributes later. It's use in a WW II "ideal" cartridge might be fine, it might be questionable. The Americans used for lend lease .303 ammo but not much else.
Shortround6
Major General
duplicate
Shortround6
Major General
The .22 short was noted for that but that is hardly the cartridge you want to go into combat with, stopping the other guy from shooting back at you is the goal of the soldiers even if not the goal of the number crunchers who came up with the idea that one wounded soldier took 2-3 others out of the fight to care for him.
No cartridge is going to work 100% of the time in 100% of the possible situations. However getting one to work a large majority of the time shouldn't be all that difficult.
Hello The Basket,
Killing via infection and occupying 2-3 other soldiers by wounding one isn't really optimal from a tactical standpoint.
The fellow who will die from infection in a month will still be causing a lot of mischief before that.
The wounded fellow who needs a couple stretcher bearers to leave the battlefield occupies those assets later, after everything has been decided on the battlefield. The chances are pretty good that the wounded soldier will be back in service at some point instead of just requiring another few guys for a burial detail. The returning soldier means one less soldier needs to be trained.
Hello Shortround6,
Perhaps there is not much difference between a .25 caliber and .264 caliber for sectional density. That wasn't the argument I was trying to make. It wasn't about Ballistic Coefficient either though that helps. I was really thinking of hitting power or momentum transferred to the target which only involves mass and terminal velocity. How fast that transfer happens is a function of bullet design and obviously we are discussing Hague Convention stuff rather than hunting bullets. There are a few tricks that have been used in the past, but I think they are beyond the scope here.
Regarding the differences of 6000 tons of Cordite if the British had switched to the .276 cal P13 rifle:
How does that 6000 tons compare to the total amount of Cordite or other propellant used in everything else the British used during the war?
I am thinking Naval Guns, Land Artillery, Small Arms, etc.? I bet the percentage is pretty small.
Suppose that the introduction of a new cartridge would have SAVED 6000 tons of propellant.
Would it be worth the logistics issues of introducing another cartridge in 1913?
What happens to existing rifles and machine guns or do the British end up with a bunch of different calibers like the Japanese did in WW2?
Your listing of ammunition is for what the military unit is supposed to have in its possession.
A better question would be what are the ammunition expenditures PER DAY for the same battalion in combat?
That number is much more meaningful because it is the amount of production needed to sustain the unit.
For a unit engaged in combat, the ammunition expended is only a small part of the logistics needed to sustain.
There is also the wastage of equipment which is much harder to replace, the casualties which generally cannot be sustained, and of course the matter of keeping the unit fed and supplied with fuel.
A few hundred rounds of rifle ammunition per soldier is pretty low on the scale of difficult things to supply.
Regarding Ball Powder / Spherical Powder / Double Base Propellants:
I used this as a generic term for double base propellants. They may have been unusual in US military rifle ammunition but keep in mind that Cordite is also double base and was in British service since about the turn of the century. The Europeans (I know for sure the Germans) also used some double base flake type propellants in rifle cartridges. You mentioned US production of .303 British, but I believe ..30 Cal Carbine ammunition was also loaded with "ball powder". I am actually pretty sure that ball / spherical / double base propellants were used in some lots of military .30-06 quite some time before the war.
If you look at the history of canister (for reloaders) double base propellants, some date back way before WW2.
This was hardly a new technology for the time.
- Ivan.
Killing via infection and occupying 2-3 other soldiers by wounding one isn't really optimal from a tactical standpoint.
The fellow who will die from infection in a month will still be causing a lot of mischief before that.
The wounded fellow who needs a couple stretcher bearers to leave the battlefield occupies those assets later, after everything has been decided on the battlefield. The chances are pretty good that the wounded soldier will be back in service at some point instead of just requiring another few guys for a burial detail. The returning soldier means one less soldier needs to be trained.
Hello Shortround6,
Perhaps there is not much difference between a .25 caliber and .264 caliber for sectional density. That wasn't the argument I was trying to make. It wasn't about Ballistic Coefficient either though that helps. I was really thinking of hitting power or momentum transferred to the target which only involves mass and terminal velocity. How fast that transfer happens is a function of bullet design and obviously we are discussing Hague Convention stuff rather than hunting bullets. There are a few tricks that have been used in the past, but I think they are beyond the scope here.
Regarding the differences of 6000 tons of Cordite if the British had switched to the .276 cal P13 rifle:
How does that 6000 tons compare to the total amount of Cordite or other propellant used in everything else the British used during the war?
I am thinking Naval Guns, Land Artillery, Small Arms, etc.? I bet the percentage is pretty small.
Suppose that the introduction of a new cartridge would have SAVED 6000 tons of propellant.
Would it be worth the logistics issues of introducing another cartridge in 1913?
What happens to existing rifles and machine guns or do the British end up with a bunch of different calibers like the Japanese did in WW2?
Your listing of ammunition is for what the military unit is supposed to have in its possession.
A better question would be what are the ammunition expenditures PER DAY for the same battalion in combat?
That number is much more meaningful because it is the amount of production needed to sustain the unit.
For a unit engaged in combat, the ammunition expended is only a small part of the logistics needed to sustain.
There is also the wastage of equipment which is much harder to replace, the casualties which generally cannot be sustained, and of course the matter of keeping the unit fed and supplied with fuel.
A few hundred rounds of rifle ammunition per soldier is pretty low on the scale of difficult things to supply.
Regarding Ball Powder / Spherical Powder / Double Base Propellants:
I used this as a generic term for double base propellants. They may have been unusual in US military rifle ammunition but keep in mind that Cordite is also double base and was in British service since about the turn of the century. The Europeans (I know for sure the Germans) also used some double base flake type propellants in rifle cartridges. You mentioned US production of .303 British, but I believe ..30 Cal Carbine ammunition was also loaded with "ball powder". I am actually pretty sure that ball / spherical / double base propellants were used in some lots of military .30-06 quite some time before the war.
If you look at the history of canister (for reloaders) double base propellants, some date back way before WW2.
This was hardly a new technology for the time.
- Ivan.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
A wounded soldier becomes a burden and needs medevac and this uses up resources and so on. Most soldiers shot with high powered rifle ww2 rounds ain't going to be combat ready so it's safe to say the war is over for them guys.
The P13 was designed for a very small expedition force whose role was to go to some far flung remote hellhole and shoot the natives. It wasn't to face millions of Germans in a muddy bog. So it was designed for empire policing and not war. The P13 was nowhere near ready and certainly not ready in 1914. So it's use of cordite would be negligible in the shooting native scheme of things. Although not getting rid of the 303 was a missed opportunity.
The P13 was designed for a very small expedition force whose role was to go to some far flung remote hellhole and shoot the natives. It wasn't to face millions of Germans in a muddy bog. So it was designed for empire policing and not war. The P13 was nowhere near ready and certainly not ready in 1914. So it's use of cordite would be negligible in the shooting native scheme of things. Although not getting rid of the 303 was a missed opportunity.
Hansie Bloeckmann
Senior Airman
Last edited:
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Adopting a rimless round would be a good idea. I think the small calibre rounds are not ideal as Shortround has explained so which would be the ideal round to adopt. I like the look of the Belgian 7.65x53mm Mauser round it is almost identical to the .303 in performance, case capacity, bullet weight and uses a virtually identical diameter bullet 7.94mm compared to .312" 7.92mm. Its within the .303 tolerance which iirc went up to .318" so its possible the original .303 barrels could be re-used.
7.65×53mm Mauser - Wikipedia
.303 British - Wikipedia
Shortround6
Major General
Trying to reuse barrels is a false economy. Unless you are trying to make RSMLE rifles (REALLY Short Magazine Lee Enfield) as you usually have to take the barrels off, cut them back a bit and then rechamber to make sure you have cleaned up the chamber area. the question is how far you have to cut them off.
Surplus SMLE barrels. two with parts of the receiver still attached. You don't have a lot of "meat" out in the barrel. If you have to cut off very much of the threads you are moving the mouth of the chamber out into the thin part of the barrel. If you are trying to save the sights you have to cut the barrels off in full turns of the threads (and that gets very tricky screwing them back into the receiver to get the the sights back on top.) Or you pull the sights off and reinstall them.
2nd from top may never have been fitted on a gun.
Manufacturing got a lot better from the 1890s/ before WW I to the 1930s and barrel tolerances were reduced. Yes you could gauge the barrels and scrap the really oversized ones.
If you are going to use the old barrels on a new receiver do you want to keep the old threads?
If you are building guns by the 10s of thousands (if not 100s of thousands) you may be better off just building everything from new and eliminating a lot of the handfit/hand select work needed by old parts.
I actually think a 6.5mm rifle and LMG might have been the way to go in WW II, at least for some countries. I just don't expect the 6.5mm to do ALL the jobs the 7.62-8mm machine guns did.
Surplus SMLE barrels. two with parts of the receiver still attached. You don't have a lot of "meat" out in the barrel. If you have to cut off very much of the threads you are moving the mouth of the chamber out into the thin part of the barrel. If you are trying to save the sights you have to cut the barrels off in full turns of the threads (and that gets very tricky screwing them back into the receiver to get the the sights back on top.) Or you pull the sights off and reinstall them.
2nd from top may never have been fitted on a gun.
Manufacturing got a lot better from the 1890s/ before WW I to the 1930s and barrel tolerances were reduced. Yes you could gauge the barrels and scrap the really oversized ones.
If you are going to use the old barrels on a new receiver do you want to keep the old threads?
If you are building guns by the 10s of thousands (if not 100s of thousands) you may be better off just building everything from new and eliminating a lot of the handfit/hand select work needed by old parts.
I actually think a 6.5mm rifle and LMG might have been the way to go in WW II, at least for some countries. I just don't expect the 6.5mm to do ALL the jobs the 7.62-8mm machine guns did.
Hello The Basket,
It really depends on where the soldier gets shot. In an old Soldier of Fortune magazine there was a pretty good article about wound ballistics and how much tissue a bullet needs to go through before it starts to yaw and produce a large permanent wound cavity. I suppose the general conclusion from this article was that caliber pretty much didn't make that much difference unless we start discussing really high velocity stuff like the .223 that starts to yaw very quickly and then disintegrates into multiple missiles.
In a lot of places on the torso, I suppose it really doesn't matter what the caliber is because almost anything will do.
It IS rather interesting that the descendant of the P13 ended up in the trenches facing hundreds of thousands of Germans anyway.
The cartridge used in the P13 just was not right for whatever reason. It apparently eroded barrels pretty quickly. Perhaps it was something that could have been fixed but we will never know.
Hello Shortround6,
Regarding double base propellants, it turns out that my recollection was not correct that it was used in the .30-06 before the war.
Quite a few other powders were used but they were apparently all single base powders. The actual use of a double base propellant was in early loadings for the .30-40 Krag. There is mention of it along with other double base powders of the time in Hatcher's Notebook starting around page 313. Hercules Bullseye was a notable powder in use at the time that is still in use today.
Tracing the history of various brands of powders gets to be very confusing at times because often there is one manufacturer but another company that markets it. Or even worse is when the original manufacturer (Winchester) may manufacture the powder and market it under one name while another company (Hodgdon) markets "the same" powder under a different name. One might think the two would be interchangeable but they are not because although they are manufactured by the same process in the same shop, the result may meet one set of pressure specifications but not the other. This is just for canister grade powders.
With non-canister grade, the factories have a pretty easy job: They test the lot and know it is suitable for perhaps a .30-06 cartridge and load a million rounds and are done. If the home reloader gets some of this stuff, they generally have no pressure testing equipment and perhaps it came with a data sheet listing a couple calibers (such as .30-06). If the reloader gets "really smart" and figures that the stuff looks just like IMR 4895 and decides to load it in something with a radically different pressure (such as a .45-70), they might be in for an unpleasant surprise. There is a lot more to this, but it is definitely off topic.
I suspect that batch of "IMR 4895" that I got was probably from a non-canister lot but it worked great in a .30-06.
- Ivan.
Hansie Bloeckmann
Senior Airman
What is the difference between canister lots of gun powder, and any other type used today, for either commercial or military ammo? I do not reload, I prefer Hornady or Federal ammo for my CF rifles, and Federal or RST for my shotguns. Hansie
Shortround6
Major General
For arsenal loading (or commercial factory) if a batch of powder (10,000lbs or whatever size batch they deal with) is a little bit "off" they just change the amount of powder used to give the ballistics desired (as long as they are still safe). This was the way the US did it for years. Specification for ammo never listed a powder charge in grains, It was always written as a the charge needed to get the desired velocity, type of powder was often not even specified as it was meaningless in regards to what the private citizen could get.
For canister grade (commercial sale) powder things get a bit tricker. If lot 87B burns just a bit quicker than lot 86A you can wind up wrecking rifles as the same amount of powder will give higher pressures. If the new lot burns a bit slower you get a bit lower velocity but still be safe. In the days before personal chronographs they may have gotten away with it. Nowadays somebody is going to post to a message board that Lot 87B is crap/defective.
Reloading manuals always used to state (and maybe still do) that when switching to a new lot of powder the reloader should back off 10% and work his/her way back up to the charges used before if the charge was at the high end of the recommendations.
Very few reloaders have personal pressure reading equipment although it is not totally out of reach of home experimenters.
For canister grade (commercial sale) powder things get a bit tricker. If lot 87B burns just a bit quicker than lot 86A you can wind up wrecking rifles as the same amount of powder will give higher pressures. If the new lot burns a bit slower you get a bit lower velocity but still be safe. In the days before personal chronographs they may have gotten away with it. Nowadays somebody is going to post to a message board that Lot 87B is crap/defective.
Reloading manuals always used to state (and maybe still do) that when switching to a new lot of powder the reloader should back off 10% and work his/her way back up to the charges used before if the charge was at the high end of the recommendations.
Very few reloaders have personal pressure reading equipment although it is not totally out of reach of home experimenters.
